高寒森林火烧迹地凋落叶混合分解的质量损失变化特征

doi:10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.02.007

林草资源研究 ›› 2025›› Issue (2): 68-78.doi: 10.13466/j.cnki.lczyyj.2025.02.007

高寒森林火烧迹地凋落叶混合分解的质量损失变化特征

李勋¹^,²(), 张艳¹^,²(), 彭彬¹^,²

1.四川民族学院横断山区生态保护与特色产业培育四川省高等学校重点实验室,四川康定 626001
2.四川民族学院横断山区生态保护与特色产业培育甘孜州重点实验室,四川康定 626001

收稿日期:2024-12-19 修回日期:2025-03-02 出版日期:2025-04-28 发布日期:2025-12-04
通讯作者: 张艳,副教授,博士,主要研究方向为高寒地区林地地力提升。Email:1030809280@qq.com
作者简介:李勋,副教授,博士,主要研究方向为川西北高寒地区退化生态系统治理。Email:502780405@qq.com
基金资助:
四川省科技计划项目“长江黄河上游高寒森林火烧迹地更新乡土树种凋落叶分解特征和树种搭配研究”(2023NSFSC1168);四川省“双一流”建设贡嘎计划“‘生态学’学科”(010916)

Mass loss characteristics of mixed decomposition of leaf litter in burned areas of high-altitude forests

LI Xun¹^,²(), ZHANG Yan¹^,²(), PENG Bin¹^,²

1. Key Laboratory of Ecological Protection and Characteristic Industry Cultivation in Hengduan Mountain Area at Sichuan Minzu College of Sichuan,Kangding 626001,Sichuan,China
2. Key Laboratory of Ecological Protection and Characteristic Industry Cultivation in Hengduan Mountain Area at Sichuan Minzu College of Garzê Prefecture,Kangding 626001,Sichuan,China

Received:2024-12-19 Revised:2025-03-02 Online:2025-04-28 Published:2025-12-04

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 川西北是四川省森林火灾发生最频繁的区域,林火显著影响森林生态系统内凋落叶的分解过程。为深入了解林火发生后凋落叶分解速率的变化以及凋落叶的混合分解效应,以川西北高寒地区典型乡土树种高山松、高山栎以及冷杉凋落叶为研究对象,以非火烧迹地为对照,通过设置包含不同树种以及混合比例的17种处理,在野外开展凋落叶分解实验。结果表明:1) 火烧迹地的凋落叶的质量损失率大于非火烧迹地,且两者之间的差异随着分解时期的延长有所增强。2) 在火烧迹地与非火烧迹地内,大部分凋落叶的质量损失速率在前期(分解0~4个月)较高,在中期(分解4~8个月)有所降低,在后期(分解16个月后)有所升高。3)火烧迹地内凋落叶质量损失的协同效应强于非火烧迹地,随着分解时间的延长,火烧迹地内凋落叶分解的协同效应有所增强,拮抗效应有所减弱,且火烧迹地内高山松与高山栎凋落叶按照1∶3混合(PQ13)和高山栎与冷杉凋落叶按照3∶1混合(QA31)的质量损失率的协同效应较强。凋落叶在火烧迹地内的质量损失速率及混合分解的效应较强。相比单一种类,以3∶1比例混合高山栎与冷杉,或以1∶3比例混合高山松和高山栎,均能促进凋落叶分解,从而促进退化森林生态系统物质循环。

关键词: 森林火烧迹地, 乡土树种, 凋落叶混合分解, 质量损失率, 非加和效应

Abstract:

The area in the northwest Sichuan Province with the most frequent forest fires significantly affects the decomposition process of leaf litter in the forest ecosystem.However,the changes in the decomposition rate and mixed decomposition effect of leaf litter after forest fires are still unclear.Therefore,non-burned forest areas were used as controls,and typical native tree species such as Pinus densata,Quercus semecarpifolia,and Abies fabri were selected as research objects.The leaf litter of these three tree species were combined into 17 treatments according to different tree species combinations and mixing ratios for field decomposition experiments.The results show that:1) The mass loss rate of leaf litter showed a higher trend in burned areas than in non-burned areas,and the difference between the two increases with the extension of decomposition period.2) The mass loss rate of most leaf litter in burned and non-burned areas showed a faster decomposition rate in the early stage of 0-4 months,followed by a decrease in the later stage of 4-8 months,and then an increase in mass loss rate after 16 months of decomposition.3) The synergistic effect of leaf litter mass loss in burned areas was stronger than that in non-burned areas,and with the extension of decomposition period,the synergistic effect of leaf litter mass loss in burned areas was enhanced,while the antagonistic effect was weakened.The research results indicate that:compared to non-burned areas,the mass loss rate and synergistic effect of mixed decomposition of leaf litter in burned areas were enhanced.Compared to litter from a single tree species,mixing the leaf litter of Quercus semecarpifolia and Abies fabri in a ratio of 3∶1,and mixing the leaf litter of Pinus densata and Quercus semecarpifolia in a ratio of 1∶3,was more conducive to leaf decomposition,thus promoting the material cycle of degraded forest ecosystems.

Key words: burned forest areas, native tree species, mixed decomposition of leaf litter, mass loss rate, non-additive effect

中图分类号:

S714

李勋, 张艳, 彭彬. 高寒森林火烧迹地凋落叶混合分解的质量损失变化特征[J]. 林草资源研究, 2025,(2): 68-78.

LI Xun, ZHANG Yan, PENG Bin. Mass loss characteristics of mixed decomposition of leaf litter in burned areas of high-altitude forests[J]. Forest and Grassland Resources Research, 2025,(2): 68-78.

图/表 6

表1

表2

表3

图1

表4

图2

参考文献 45

[1]	盖鹤, 朱文文, 张敏, 等. 次生盐化对溪流底栖分解者和凋落物分解的影响[J]. 水生态学杂志, 2024, 45(3):32-44.
[2]	朱德煌, 王金燕, 黄慧婷, 等. 闽楠林土壤-凋落物-叶片碳氮磷生态化学计量对人为干扰的响应[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(12):5050-5059.
[3]	张晓曦, 胡嘉伟, 刘凯旋, 等. 黄土丘陵区刺槐人工林林龄增加土壤微环境变化对凋落物分解的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(7):2931-2945.
[4]	罗国娜, 车震宇. 马尾松凋落物对土壤氮循环与微生物的影响[J]. 山东农业大学学报(自然科学版), 2023, 54(4):553-561.
[5]	王俊贤. 喀斯特石漠化地区凋落物输入对土壤有机碳积累和稳定的调控机理[D]. 贵阳: 贵州师范大学, 2024.
[6]	杜丹丹. 黄土丘陵区三种林分凋落物分解对土壤有机碳含量及其稳定性的影响[D]. 西安: 西安理工大学, 2024.
[7]	马慧霞. 凋落物和林下植被对大别山森林生态系统土壤呼吸的影响[D]. 保定: 河北大学, 2024.
[8]	董灵波, 刘兆刚. 不同强度的林火干扰对天然落叶松林分物种多样性及碳储量的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2020, 48(9):45-50.
[9]	REID J L, HOLL K D, ZAHAWI R A. Seed dispersal limitations shift over time in tropical forest restoration[J]. Ecological Applications, 2015, 25(4):1072-1082. pmid: 26465043
[10]	刘宇, 王亚锋, 刘波, 等. 西藏米林高山松径向生长对气候变化的响应[J]. 第四纪研究, 2024, 44(4):928-938.
[11]	于德水, 卢杰, 江村扎西, 等. 火干扰因素对藏南地区高山松径向生长及气候响应特征的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2023, 43(20):8578-8586.
[12]	赵彩云, 陆双飞, 李荣亮, 等. 气候变化下西南地区主要亚热带常绿栎属乔木地理分布研究[J]. 热带亚热带植物学报, 2024, 32(3):357-366.
[13]	LIAO Ziyan, NOBIS M P, XIONG Qonli, et al. Potential distributions of seven sympatric sclerophyllous oak species in Southwest China depend on climatic,non-climatic,and independent spatial drivers[J]. Annals of Forest Science, 2021, 78(5):1-22. doi: 10.1007/s13595-020-01014-3
[14]	魏靖轩, 许昆, 张远东, 等. 川西康定云冷杉径向生长对气候变化响应的差异[J]. 生态学报, 2024, 44(23):10906-10914.
[15]	于振江. 雅江县恶古乡林火对火烧迹地土壤结构及水理性质影响研究[D]. 成都: 西南交通大学, 2020.
[16]	谢金娟. 马尾松与不同阔叶树种凋落物混合分解特征及其对土壤养分的影响[D]. 长沙: 中南林业科技大学, 2024.
[17]	VANDERBILT K L, WHITE C S, HOPKINS O, et al. Aboveground decomposition in arid environments:Results of a long-term study in central New Mexico[J]. Journal of Arid Environments, 2008, 72(5):696-709. doi: 10.1016/j.jaridenv.2007.10.010
[18]	TERRILL T. Determination of extractable and bound condensed tannin concentrations in forage plants,protein concentrate meals and cereal grains[J]. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 2010, 58(3):321-329. doi: 10.1002/jsfa.v58:3
[19]	李宜浓, 周晓梅, 张乃莉, 等. 陆地生态系统混合凋落物分解研究进展[J]. 生态学报, 2016, 36(16):4977-4987.
[20]	THROOP H L, ABU SALEM M, WHITFORD W G. Fire enhances litter decomposition and reduces vegetation cover influences on decomposition in a dry woodland[J]. Plant Ecology, 2017, 218(7):1-13. doi: 10.1007/s11258-016-0694-6
[21]	JOHANNES H C C, SASKIA G, LIENEKE M V, et al. Are litter decomposition and fire linked through plant species traits?[J]. New Phytologist, 2017, 216(3):653-669. doi: 10.1111/nph.14766 pmid: 28892160
[22]	孔健健, 杨健. 火干扰对北方针叶林土壤环境的影响[J]. 土壤通报, 2014, 45(2):291-296.
[23]	王莎莎. 喀斯特石漠化地区凋落物和外源钙输入对土壤有机碳和微生物群落结构的影响[D]. 贵阳: 贵州师范大学, 2024.
[24]	侯卓男, 张新军, 王瑞红, 等. 不同海拔高寒森林凋落物分解过程中土壤微生物群落的变化[J]. 中国农业大学学报, 2024, 29(2):36-46.
[25]	吴金桔. 沿纬度梯度树木叶凋落物光降解变化特征及其驱动因素[D]. 沈阳: 沈阳大学, 2024.
[26]	KING J Y, BRANDT L A, ADAIR E C. Shedding light on plant litter decomposition:advances,implications and new directions in understanding the role of photodegradation[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2012, 111(1-3):57-81. doi: 10.1007/s10533-012-9737-9
[27]	RATHOD T D, SAHU S K, TIWARI M, et al. Light absorption enhancement due to mixing in black carbon and organic carbon generated during biomass burning[J]. Atmospheric Pollution Research, 2021, 12(12):101236. doi: 10.1016/j.apr.2021.101236
[28]	张悦, 张艺凡, 马怡波, 等. 森林生态系统凋落物分解影响因素研究进展[J]. 环境生态学, 2023, 5(4):45-56.
[29]	代松家, 周晨霓, 段斐, 等. 组分和生境差异对藏东南原始冷杉林凋落物分解和养分释放特征的影响[J]. 中国水土保持科学(中英文), 2020, 18(6):72-80.
[30]	王光军, 田大伦, 闫文德, 等. 去除和添加凋落物对枫香(Liquidambar formosana)和樟树(Cinnamomum camphora)林土壤呼吸的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2009, 29(2):643-652.
[31]	赵红梅, 程军回, 张文太, 等. 古尔班通古特沙漠 5 种植物凋落物分解特征[J]. 中国沙漠, 2020, 40(2):165-176. doi: 10.7522/j.issn.1000-694X.2019.00081
[32]	周文昌, 牟长城, 刘夏, 等. 火干扰对小兴安岭白桦沼泽和落叶松-苔草沼泽凋落物和土壤碳储量的影响[J]. 生态学报, 2012, 32(20):6387-6395.
[33]	RIETL A J, JACKSON C R. Effects of the ecological restoration practices of prescribed burning and mechanical thinning on soil microbial enzyme activities and leaf litter decomposition[J]. Soil Biology and Biochemistry, 2012,50:47-57.
[34]	PELLEGRINI A F A, CAPRIO A C, Georgiou K, et al. Low-intensity frequent fires in coniferous forests transform soil organic matter in ways that may offset ecosystem carbon losses[J]. Global Change Biology, 2021, 27(16):3810-3823. doi: 10.1111/gcb.v27.16
[35]	HOPKINS J R, SEMENOVA N T, SIKES B A. Fungal community structure and seasonal trajectories respond similarly to fire across pyrophilic ecosystems[J]. FEMS Microbiology Ecology, 2021, 97(1):1-13.
[36]	VILD O, KALWIJ J M, HEDL R, et al. Effects of simulated historical tree litter raking on the understorey vegetation in a central European forest[J]. Applied Vegetation Science, 2015, 18(4):569-578. doi: 10.1111/avsc.12180 pmid: 29242706
[37]	王淳, 董雪婷, 杜瑞鹏, 等. 华北落叶松与阔叶树种混合凋落叶分解过程中养分释放和酶活性变化[J]. 应用生态学报, 2021, 32(5):1709-1716. doi: 10.13287/j.1001-9332.202105.008
[38]	DAY T A, BLISS M S, TOMES A R, et al. Desert leaf litter decay:Coupling of microbial respiration,water-soluble fractions and photodegradation[J]. Global Chang Biology, 2018,24:5454-5470.
[39]	李勋, 黄从飞, 高一航, 等. 川西北地区高寒森林火烧迹地3种凋落叶混合分解初期全碳释放特征[J]. 四川农业大学学报, 2024, 42(6):1290-1299.
[40]	MÉNDEZ M S, MARTINEZ M L, ARAUJO P I, et al. Solar radiation exposure accelerates decomposition and biotic activity in surface litter but not soil in a semiarid woodland ecosystem in Patagonia,Argentina[J]. Plant and Soil, 2019,445:483-496.
[41]	DAY T A, URBINE J M, Bliss M S. Supplemental precipitation accelerates decay but only in photodegraded litter and implications that sunlight promotes leaching loss[J]. Biogeochemistry, 2022,158:113-129.
[42]	NOPS J M, WEDIN D A, Tilman D. Biodiversity and decomposition in experimental grassland ecosystems[J]. Oecologia, 2001, 126(3):429-433. doi: 10.1007/s004420000537 pmid: 28547458
[43]	RUSTAD L E. Element dynamics along a decay continuum in a red spruce ecosystem in Maine,USA[J]. Ecology, 1994, 75(4):867-879. doi: 10.2307/1939412
[44]	MUDRICK D A, HOOSEIN M, Hicks J R, et al. Decomposition of leaf litter in an Appalachian forest:effect s of leaf species,aspect,slope position and time[J]. Forest Ecology and Management, 1994, 68(2-3):231-250. doi: 10.1016/0378-1127(94)90048-5
[45]	NILSSON M C, WARDLED D A, DAHLBERG A. Effects of plant litter species composition and diversity on the boreal forest plant-soil system[J]. Oikos, 1999, 86(1):16-26. doi: 10.2307/3546566

样地	pH	土壤容重/(g/cm³)	土壤孔隙度/%	海拔/m	坡度/(°)	坡向
BF	6.01±0.03	1.22±0.11	54.46±3.78	3 206	13	南/东南
NBF	6.11±0.05	1.01±0.19	62.05±6.90	3 152	12	东南

凋落叶处理	树种组合	处理名称	混合比例
单一树种	高山松/高山栎/冷杉(P.densata/Q.semicarpifolia/A.fabri)	P/Q/A
2个树种	高山松+高山栎(P.densata+Q.semicarpifolia)	PQ	3∶1、1∶1、1∶3
	高山松+冷杉(P.densata+A.fabri)	PA	3∶1、1∶1、1∶3
	高山栎+冷杉(Q.semicarpifolia+A.fabri)	QA	3∶1、1∶1、1∶3
3个树种	高山松+高山栎+冷杉(P.densata+Q.semicarpifolia+A.fabri)	PQA	2∶2∶1、2∶1∶1、1∶1∶1、1∶1∶2、1∶2∶2

处理	全碳	全氮	全磷	木质素	纤维素	总酚
P	380.98±26.17a	6.60±0.11d	0.55±0.02j	349.35±22.70def	224.95±41.48ab	23.06±0.28bcde
Q	402.96±12.85a	2.64±0.07m	0.75±0.05ef	435.06± 5.73a	164.24± 4.72cd	18.16±2.23i
A	381.74±38.10a	7.50±0.32a	0.95±0.02a	200.78±11.05k	154.45±20.49d	25.43±1.45a
PQ31	386.48±17.13a	5.61±0.09gh	0.60±0.02i	370.78±17.29cd	259.77± 9.52ab	21.84±0.35defg
PQ11	391.97± 8.74a	4.62±0.07k	0.65±0.03h	392.20±12.10c	261.26± 7.20ab	20.61±0.98fgh
PQ13	397.47± 5.79a	3.63±0.06l	0.70±0.04g	413.63± 7.60b	262.75± 4.91a	19.38±1.60hi
QA31	381.17±14.90a	6.83±0.03cd	0.65±0.01h	312.21±19.59gh	232.32±11.84abc	23.65±0.53abcd
QA11	381.36±13.98a	7.05±0.11bc	0.75±0.01ef	275.06±16.57i	206.36±11.83bc	24.25±0.83abc
QA13	381.55±24.60a	7.28±0.21ab	0.85±0.01c	237.92±13.69j	180.41±11.82c	24.84±1.14ab
PA31	397.65±19.07a	3.86±0.11l	0.80±0.04d	376.49± 4.47c	236.80± 4.95ab	19.97±1.51ghi
PA11	392.35±25.38a	5.07±0.17j	0.85±0.03c	317.92± 5.54gh	208.56± 6.48abc	21.79±0.94defg
PA13	387.04±31.73a	6.29±0.24e	0.90±0.02b	259.35± 8.04i	212.19±24.63abc	23.61±0.91abcd
PQA221	389.92± 8.68a	5.20±0.05ij	0.71±0.02fg	353.92±11.53de	239.90± 8.12ab	21.57±0.67efg
PQA211	386.66± 9.74a	5.84±0.05fg	0.70±0.02g	333.63±14.1efg	233.81± 9.51abc	22.43±0.39cdef
PQA111	388.56±12.30a	5.58±0.09h	0.75±0.02ef	328.39±11.24fg	225.43± 8.73abc	22.22±0.57def
PQA112	386.85±18.24a	6.06±0.14ef	0.80±0.02d	296.49±10.99h	207.86± 9.51abc	23.02±0.63bcde
PQA122	390.07±16.96a	5.38±0.12hi	0.79±0.02de	324.20± 8.95g	259.77± 9.52ab	22.05±0.72def

凋落叶处理	样地区域	每30天质量损失率
凋落叶处理	样地区域	4个月	8个月	16个月
P	BF	3.92±0.05A	1.75±0.23B	2.14±0.35B
P	NBF	2.76±0.68A	1.45±0.63A	1.56±0.15A
Q	BF	2.85±0.38A	1.89±0.29A	1.94±0.46A
Q	NBF	2.37±0.29A	1.49±0.36A	1.70±0.26A
A	BF	3.67±0.33A	0.82±0.25B	1.49±0.47B
A	NBF	2.77±0.13A	2.25±0.23A	1.04±0.28B
PQ31	BF	3.23±0.22A	1.77±0.26B	2.99±0.42AB
PQ31	NBF	1.28±0.35B	1.25±0.78B	2.44±0.52A
PQ11	BF	3.61±0.07A	1.20±0.44B	2.45±0.44AB
PQ11	NBF	2.48±0.66A	0.77±1.07B	2.30±0.63A
PQ13	BF	3.50±0.36A	2.41±0.48A	2.81±0.43A
PQ13	NBF	1.83±0.33B	1.40±0.65B	2.39±0.08A
QA31	BF	4.08±0.16A	1.16±0.34B	1.63±0.10B
QA31	NBF	3.59±0.36A	1.13±0.53B	1.39±0.10B
QA11	BF	3.79±0.11A	1.07±0.13B	2.20±0.47B
QA11	NBF	2.68±0.41A	1.80±0.09A	1.65±0.33A
QA13	BF	4.55±0.40A	0.80±0.48A	2.49±0.63AB
QA13	NBF	3.07±0.90A	0.95±0.52B	1.75±0.20AB
PA31	BF	4.00±0.08A	0.78±0.17C	2.02±0.47B
PA31	NBF	2.19±0.90A	2.70±1.22A	1.12±0.41B
PA11	BF	3.59±0.44A	1.49±0.19B	2.29±0.40AB
PA11	NBF	1.08±0.76B	2.89±1.35A	1.04±0.25B
PA13	BF	3.41±0.21A	1.23±0.12B	1.72±0.57B
PA13	NBF	2.32±0.79A	1.58±0.72AB	1.17±0.22B
PQA221	BF	3.69±0.30A	1.03±0.44B	3.07±0.05A
PQA221	NBF	1.52±0.33A	1.64±0.46A	1.98±0.22A
PQA211	BF	3.07±0.12A	1.83±0.36B	2.64±0.33AB
PQA211	NBF	1.43±0.62A	1.45±0.51A	1.83±0.25A
PQA111	BF	3.11±0.53A	0.67±0.30B	1.82±0.41AB
PQA111	NBF	2.22±0.48A	1.93±0.29AB	1.38±0.27B
PQA112	BF	2.66±0.37A	1.77±0.30A	1.83±0.52A
PQA112	NBF	1.69±0.45A	1.43±0.33A	1.15±0.42A
PQA122	BF	3.70±0.37A	1.34±0.23B	2.10±0.21B
PQA122	NBF	2.62±0.08A	1.76±0.28B	1.57±0.04B

高寒森林火烧迹地凋落叶混合分解的质量损失变化特征

Mass loss characteristics of mixed decomposition of leaf litter in burned areas of high-altitude forests

RichHTML

PDF (PC)

可视化

摘要/Abstract

引用本文

使用本文

图/表 6

参考文献 45

相关文章 2

编辑推荐

Metrics

本文评价

[1]	何桂梅, 邓华, 何友均. 北京乡土椴树资源开发利用对策探讨[J]. 林业资源管理, 2017, 0(3): 25-30.
[2]	卢立娜, 高崇华, 赵雨兴, 李维向, 胡莉芳, 贺晓辉, 何金军. 鄂尔多斯主要绿化树种引种研究[J]. 林业资源管理, 2014, 0(5): 115-119.